Does every conflict must be solved with killing the bad guy?
Star Trek had stories where the episode revolved around cleaning up a misunderstandings, not killing a bad guy. Is there such a story in Star Wars? What would you imagine such a story looking like?
Depends. There are lots of stories where lesser bad guys will turn good, i.e Xesh from DotJ. Ulic sort of counts since he wasn't killed when he was a bad guy, but he died in the end.
__________________ “The galaxy must experience the pain of death and the rapture of rebirth as I have. I will bring chaos. It is time for war.”
Registered: Mar 2014
Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
Revan
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Most of Star Wars is pretty simple. Fight evil, kill the bad guy, kiss the chick with the most sympathetic boobs background.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
After their leader and millions (billions?) of their fellows were slaughtered though, yeah?
In any case, to answer the OP, no. Star Wars is a simplistic franchise and the writers have historically struggled to break out of the normal Star Wars mold- thus the basic idea of "super evil person in black beats up good guys for awhile, then gets killed- maybe repents for sins first." With little deviation.
The Empire being allowed to surrender to the Republic is probably the closest we've come to what you're looking for.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
Last edited by Tzeentch on Dec 30th, 2014 at 11:51 AM
If it wasn't for the killing, the GA would never have survived long enough for the Vong to realize the error of their ways- not to mention that it was only after the deaths of their leaders that real change began to take place in the faction.
So at the very least, "killing bad guys" was a massive contribution toward buying time until the situation resolved itself.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
Last edited by Tzeentch on Dec 30th, 2014 at 11:59 AM
That's splitting hairs. The question was about if every conflict has to be solved with killing the bad guys. The conflict itself was about the killing you mention, and the solution was making peace with them and convince them to give up war.
When a conflict is a war to begin with, there's obviously going to be killing involved, but the question is whether the solution is 'militarily defeat the other side' (which they did not), or prompt a change in philosophy that leads to peace (which they did).
I dunno. That strikes me as equivalent to saying that it wasn't kicking Japan's ass across the pacific and then nuking them that made the Japanese surrender, the "solution" derived from them not wanting to fight anymore.
The violence and killing of their ideological leaders was the catalyst for the Vong's change. They would never have done so if the war had gone better for them, imo.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."